The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for SLCC students in ECON 1740 (U.S. economic history) to discuss "insight" segments from the text, access other assignments and to post comments.
After a careful reading of Chapter 14, please view the following videos and comment on the primary economic factors that favored the North in the Civil War. What, if anything, might the South have done to gain an economic advantage?
The North had railroads at their disposal. They allowed black people and slaves to fight in the war. They blockade the South's ports so no imports could come into them to help the South. The South could have the economic advantage if they allowed their slaves to fight with the white men against the North. The South should have built more railroads. They could have find a way to get rid of the blockade in th South so they could get weapon imports from the other countries.
I think the economic factors that helped the North is that they had more manufacturing factories with allowed them to produce more weapons as well as hey had a bigger population than the south. Other factor is that they had the railroads, which allowed the North to have a great advantage. I don't think they were too many things that the south was able to do because in my opinion the north became a stronger economy than the south and they had better resources for the war and they had more money to back it up
I think that the factors that favored the North were that their economy was primarily industry based, so they had more war supplies. And they had a lot people to fight in the war, while the south, had a lot more people, more of them were slaves, and not allowed to fight. If the south had based its economy in more industry, they may have had the means to keep their economy stable during the war.
Adam Smith made the argument in "Wealth of Nations" that slavery was actually less economically feasible than actually HIRING workers, so for starters they could have NOT HAD SLAVES. Also, the North's better manufacturing and transportation gave them the edge.
Well, the North from the get go had more money as well as man power. Their power over the railways also gave them the economic as well as efficiency advantage. The South could have, maybe?, sold or traded slaves who were unable or unwilling to fight for more supplies.
Riley G. The North was far more advanced in the means of transportation with their advanced rail system. The North had more man power in that it was more concentrated, the South had to divide its manpower to repress slave labor force and other preoccupations, which gave the north a 3 to 1 advantage. The North ceased the major transport networks (Mississippi and the naval blockade) and rendered it helpless. Although the South controlled the textile industry with their monopolies of cotton farming, the naval blockade and Lincoln’s armies limited exporting and importing, handicapping the South.
The north definitely had the advantage because they had the railroad which allowed them to produce more goods. North allowed their slave to fight in the war, which gave them the advantage in for the numbers in the war. With the numbers they were able to take the victory in battle.
After seeing these videos, the north had a huge advantage. I think the only advantage economically for the south would have been that they had more money to give to their soldiers and war effort because of the money they saved for having slaves.
The only thing that the South could have done in the in the early 1800's right up to the civil war is to have built up its own transport and industry. With their economy so heavy on agriculture, they could not produce and transport war supplies effectively.
There were several economic factors that seemed to favor the North in the Civil War. The North had more industry that sustained their economy better than cotton did for the Southern economy during the war. Industry could also produce weapons and ammunition which the north had in abundance during the war including some rifles that fired more rounds per minute than the south had. The North also had many more miles of Rail Road than the South which helped greatly with getting reinforcements to the right place in a timely manner. The North had a much higher population of free men and thus did not have labor shortages as badly as the South had. War also brought more destruction to the South and it's economic structure as most battles were fought on Southern soil. Since the North was not averse to centralization, D.C. could tax more effectively than the South and generally had a better fiscal and monetary system with the rise of a national bank in the north. Thus, the north did not have to rely as much on money printing as the South did and so did not have the hyper inflation that the South eventually had.
Hind sight being 20/20, it may have been possible for the South to have done some things differently. Perhaps they could have built more industry and Rail Roads in the 1850's, but for what purpose? They did not really need them until Lincoln was elected and by that time it was too late. Also they could have traded more cotton to England before the 1863 Union blockade, since England refused to be pressured into supporting the South. Again, hind sight is 20/20, but in fact Southern policies before and after the war started were not without reasons and rational, only it just didn't work as they hoped.
I’m not sure what the south could of done to better its situation because it had way too many trade, production and financial issues. Along with the North’s advantages are its well developed transportation system (railroad) and their manufacturing that ensured more weapons. A significant advantage is the fact that they had more men to fight.
If the South had not relied on slavery or agriculture in their economy and turned to industry instead they would have had a much better advantage in the war. It's possible immigration would have been higher and because of a higher population they would have had a larger army.
The South did not have many options at all. The railroad they had was next to nothing in the comparison to the North. They lost the Mississippi river quite quickly, the only thing they had, they did not want to give up....The Slaves. Having the slaves gave them power, made them feel superior. Yes they could have and maybe should have sold them for monetary gain but their pride got in the way of that.
The south had a great amount of economic disadvantage in this war. If they wanted to gain an economic advantage they could have increased the amount of railroad track and made the ownership non-private. Another thing that they could have done to win the war was increased the slaves participation and requirement in the war. Also the South could have made more factories where the north dominated the factories and the railroads the war was greatly in their favor. The South's economy was not ready or basic based to win this war. They simply did not have the access that it required to win the war. -Trevor Smith
One can easily look back on the South's errors while standing on the other side of history. Currently we see an economy in free fall due to similar mistakes. So many economies of scale have suffered recently from the housing crisis. Perhaps these same housing driven business' would have done well to take heed to this significant entry in our history books.
The South's failure stemmed from three main factors. First, they had an economic system built on a morally wrong foundation that would eventually crumble no matter how powerful. Secondly, the South created a cultural belief handed down through generational teaching, that this was "a way of life". Cultural systems and philosophies are difficult to change when they have been so heavily implemented into the livelihoods of families, cities, and governments. Thirdly, the South failed miserably to move past a single-minded approach in building up it's economy. Just like modern day America has done with China & India, they allowed the North to lead in industry, manufacturing, and migration. Had they looked to the future instead of holding strongly to their "one-way" approach to growth and innovation, their ability to be more successful in this war would have fared better.
The South could have had a couple advantages that could have helped them win the war as well as change their economic decline during the war. If the South would have maintained its relationship with England and keep trading, England would have been able to provide military supplies. The South had great leadership and their Generals knew how to win battles, which was proven time after time. Provided the South would have changed a quarter of their agriculture industries to industrial and plan ahead, by storing supplies instead of just declaring war. The South would have been able to win.
In 1861 and 1862 the South hadn't even exported 1% of their cotton. Regardless of whether or not they had the man power to fight the war, their potential trading power would have helped significantly as a way to prevent the enormous inflation created in the South during the war, and also would have helped in financing the war, particularly in view of the fact that England had a meager cotton crop in the early 1860's. Their lack of trade might in part also have been due to their low population, because as more people would have joined the war, less people would be at home to take care of financial concerns or to help export local cotton to Europe. The South also had hope that they could create an army that would recreate the Revolution, by having a weak, meagerly supplied force overcome a far more powerful opponent. On the other hand the North held almost every advantage, in man power, manufacturing of war supplies, and by choking Southern exports early in the war.
If the south wasn't going to implement the idea of having railroads take over the transporting of goods and people, then they were in deep trouble, for other ways of doing this would be inferior at the time. Falling behind on being able to keep your men fighting is eminent when the enemy in this case the north is able to have access to much more convenient and speedy methods. Not to mention that you have 35% of your population aware that the side on which you are on is not actually fighting for your right but only to prolong the dreadful life that you are being told to live, unwillingly.
The North had railroads at their disposal. They allowed black people and slaves to fight in the war. They blockade the South's ports so no imports could come into them to help the South. The South could have the economic advantage if they allowed their slaves to fight with the white men against the North. The South should have built more railroads. They could have find a way to get rid of the blockade in th South so they could get weapon imports from the other countries.
ReplyDeleteI think the economic factors that helped the North is that they had more manufacturing factories with allowed them to produce more weapons as well as hey had a bigger population than the south. Other factor is that they had the railroads, which allowed the North to have a great advantage. I don't think they were too many things that the south was able to do because in my opinion the north became a stronger economy than the south and they had better resources for the war and they had more money to back it up
ReplyDeleteI think that the factors that favored the North were that their economy was primarily industry based, so they had more war supplies. And they had a lot people to fight in the war, while the south, had a lot more people, more of them were slaves, and not allowed to fight. If the south had based its economy in more industry, they may have had the means to keep their economy stable during the war.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Gruendell
Adam Smith made the argument in "Wealth of Nations" that slavery was actually less economically feasible than actually HIRING workers, so for starters they could have NOT HAD SLAVES. Also, the North's better manufacturing and transportation gave them the edge.
ReplyDeleteCurtis Russell
Well, the North from the get go had more money as well as man power. Their power over the railways also gave them the economic as well as efficiency advantage. The South could have, maybe?, sold or traded slaves who were unable or unwilling to fight for more supplies.
ReplyDeleteRiley G.
ReplyDeleteThe North was far more advanced in the means of transportation with their advanced rail system. The North had more man power in that it was more concentrated, the South had to divide its manpower to repress slave labor force and other preoccupations, which gave the north a 3 to 1 advantage. The North ceased the major transport networks (Mississippi and the naval blockade) and rendered it helpless. Although the South controlled the textile industry with their monopolies of cotton farming, the naval blockade and Lincoln’s armies limited exporting and importing, handicapping the South.
The north definitely had the advantage because they had the railroad which allowed them to produce more goods. North allowed their slave to fight in the war, which gave them the advantage in for the numbers in the war. With the numbers they were able to take the victory in battle.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing these videos, the north had a huge advantage. I think the only advantage economically for the south would have been that they had more money to give to their soldiers and war effort because of the money they saved for having slaves.
ReplyDeleteTyrel Giles
The fact that the north maintained war supply lines by taking over control over the railroads.
ReplyDeleteIn any war the army that maintains their supply lines in the one that wins. You can't win a war without supplies
-Rick Kilboy
The only thing that the South could have done in the in the early 1800's right up to the civil war is to have built up its own transport and industry. With their economy so heavy on agriculture, they could not produce and transport war supplies effectively.
ReplyDeleteThere were several economic factors that seemed to favor the North in the Civil War. The North had more industry that sustained their economy better than cotton did for the Southern economy during the war. Industry could also produce weapons and ammunition which the north had in abundance during the war including some rifles that fired more rounds per minute than the south had. The North also had many more miles of Rail Road than the South which helped greatly with getting reinforcements to the right place in a timely manner. The North had a much higher population of free men and thus did not have labor shortages as badly as the South had. War also brought more destruction to the South and it's economic structure as most battles were fought on Southern soil. Since the North was not averse to centralization, D.C. could tax more effectively than the South and generally had a better fiscal and monetary system with the rise of a national bank in the north. Thus, the north did not have to rely as much on money printing as the South did and so did not have the hyper inflation that the South eventually had.
ReplyDeleteHind sight being 20/20, it may have been possible for the South to have done some things differently. Perhaps they could have built more industry and Rail Roads in the 1850's, but for what purpose? They did not really need them until Lincoln was elected and by that time it was too late. Also they could have traded more cotton to England before the 1863 Union blockade, since England refused to be pressured into supporting the South. Again, hind sight is 20/20, but in fact Southern policies before and after the war started were not without reasons and rational, only it just didn't work as they hoped.
Gary T.
I’m not sure what the south could of done to better its situation because it had way too many trade, production and financial issues. Along with the North’s advantages are its well developed transportation system (railroad) and their manufacturing that ensured more weapons. A significant advantage is the fact that they had more men to fight.
ReplyDeleteVeronika Dimitrova
If the South had not relied on slavery or agriculture in their economy and turned to industry instead they would have had a much better advantage in the war. It's possible immigration would have been higher and because of a higher population they would have had a larger army.
ReplyDeleteThe South did not have many options at all. The railroad they had was next to nothing in the comparison to the North. They lost the Mississippi river quite quickly, the only thing they had, they did not want to give up....The Slaves. Having the slaves gave them power, made them feel superior. Yes they could have and maybe should have sold them for monetary gain but their pride got in the way of that.
ReplyDeleteThe south had a great amount of economic disadvantage in this war. If they wanted to gain an economic advantage they could have increased the amount of railroad track and made the ownership non-private. Another thing that they could have done to win the war was increased the slaves participation and requirement in the war. Also the South could have made more factories where the north dominated the factories and the railroads the war was greatly in their favor. The South's economy was not ready or basic based to win this war. They simply did not have the access that it required to win the war.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Smith
One can easily look back on the South's errors while standing on the other side of history. Currently we see an economy in free fall due to similar mistakes. So many economies of scale have suffered recently from the housing crisis. Perhaps these same housing driven business' would have done well to take heed to this significant entry in our history books.
ReplyDeleteThe South's failure stemmed from three main factors. First, they had an economic system built on a morally wrong foundation that would eventually crumble no matter how powerful. Secondly, the South created a cultural belief handed down through generational teaching, that this was "a way of life". Cultural systems and philosophies are difficult to change when they have been so heavily implemented into the livelihoods of families, cities, and governments. Thirdly, the South failed miserably to move past a single-minded approach in building up it's economy. Just like modern day America has done with China & India, they allowed the North to lead in industry, manufacturing, and migration. Had they looked to the future instead of holding strongly to their "one-way" approach to growth and innovation, their ability to be more successful in this war would have fared better.
The South could have had a couple advantages that could have helped them win the war as well as change their economic decline during the war. If the South would have maintained its relationship with England and keep trading, England would have been able to provide military supplies. The South had great leadership and their Generals knew how to win battles, which was proven time after time. Provided the South would have changed a quarter of their agriculture industries to industrial and plan ahead, by storing supplies instead of just declaring war. The South would have been able to win.
ReplyDeleteIn 1861 and 1862 the South hadn't even exported 1% of their cotton. Regardless of whether or not they had the man power to fight the war, their potential trading power would have helped significantly as a way to prevent the enormous inflation created in the South during the war, and also would have helped in financing the war, particularly in view of the fact that England had a meager cotton crop in the early 1860's. Their lack of trade might in part also have been due to their low population, because as more people would have joined the war, less people would be at home to take care of financial concerns or to help export local cotton to Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe South also had hope that they could create an army that would recreate the Revolution, by having a weak, meagerly supplied force overcome a far more powerful opponent.
On the other hand the North held almost every advantage, in man power, manufacturing of war supplies, and by choking Southern exports early in the war.
-Joseph Barnes
If the south wasn't going to implement the idea of having railroads take over the transporting of goods and people, then they were in deep trouble, for other ways of doing this would be inferior at the time. Falling behind on being able to keep your men fighting is eminent when the enemy in this case the north is able to have access to much more convenient and speedy methods. Not to mention that you have 35% of your population aware that the side on which you are on is not actually fighting for your right but only to prolong the dreadful life that you are being told to live, unwillingly.
ReplyDelete